Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann an institution?

Mon Sep 21 11:50:00 EDT 2009

The "liberal and democratic freedoms" do not need to (as Milton
Mueller put it) get "IN TOglobal governance of the Internet," (my
CAPS) if by "IN TO" one means an introduction or a planting or a first
time "reform."

These rights/freedoms already exist, and they exist globally, by
treaty, universally applicable international law, national
constitutions, and rights generally (which do not depend upon
governments to grant them, if they are fundamental in nature).  These
rights and freedoms are only being violated in certain quarters.
Violation does not mean rights don't exist.  Rights, like any valuable
thing, are subject to being taken or violated.

The challenge is how to stop the violations, not how to get rights or
freedoms "in to global governance of the Internet."

Or, put positively, the challenge is how to achieve actions that
affirm the rights of all by getting others to remember their duties
(not just their "rights") specifically to respect the rights of people
other than themselves.

"Noble Principles"
There is no declaration or example of fundamental public policy
regarding freedom or things associated with that -- regarding Internet
governance or anywhere else -- that does not have underlying
principles motivating it and providing its foundation.

The noble, or ignoble, principles animating any and all given texts
are either (1) stated transparently up front or (2) the noble or
ignoble principles are implicit and thereby nontransparent to the text
of the proposal or communication.

Clarity of expression, as well as transparency, as well the duty to
protect the rights principles themselves militate in favor of stating
one's principles up front, for all to see.

For the reasons in the above paragraph, I can't agree at all with
Francis Muguet's comment below suggesting that "noble principles"
discussions waste bandwidth.

WIthout exception, every legislative proposal or constitutional case
has policies, principles and rights proffered in its favor, whether
noble or ignoble, and good governance surely means, at least to me,
disclosing the underlying principles and assumptions that are the very
core and spring of the proposal.

Conversely, the most important freedoms and principles take big hits
and suffer damage simply when they are not discussed, for whatever
reason.  In effect, these rights and principles are not at the
"bargaining table" even though they are the most important players,
enshrined in constitutions, treaties and the hearts of people around
the world.

I'll say the following regarding my own country, which has failed to
secure rights in these regards miserably in recent times.
Nevertheless, wiser heads in past times when states entered the Union
between 1790 and most recently in 1959, nearly without exception
placed clauses in the State Constitutions that speak to, and warn,
people about the importance of "noble principles":

"Frequent RECURRENCE to FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES is absolutely necessary
to the preservation of liberty and free government." (aka "freedom and
democracy")
See, e.g., Washington State Constitution, Art. I, sec. 39 for one
example of similar language.

Either we recur to fundamental principles, in which case we have
transparency of analysis and freedom and democracy are enabled (and
ennobled), or else these principles are eroded or even damaged and
destroyed simply because their contours are not even being considered
(or perhaps a few don't want the principles considered or revealed, in
some cases).

This is not a minor point.  It's not OK to not keep the most important
principles, noble or otherwise, a secret, nor to claim they are boring
or what have you.  In my view, No reasonable person ought to disagree
with that, but what they can say is that the applicable principles are
different ones, or perhaps even not "noble" ones.

Every text or proposal has principles animating it, they need to be
disclosed.  Transparency of principles is not wasted bandwith, nor is
frequent recurrence or frequent reminders about what's most important
wasting time, either.  Even if each of us is individually highly
familiar with the principles, others may benefit from a reminder, and
in any case DISCLOSURE is necessary without exception for transparent
and intellectually honest discussion or debate.

Technical detailed nuances oftentimes act to mask real issues at the
level of fundamental rights.  Nobody should, accidentally or on
purpose, be allowed to redefine what is really a fundamental rights
issue as a pure issue of high tech or bureaucratic administration.  I
don't say that's the intent of any one here, but this is the danger of
nontransparency as to fundamental principles in any given area.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

On 9/21/09, Dr. Francis MUGUET <muguet at mdpi.net> wrote:
> Dear Milton and all
>>
>>
>> And again, back to Bertrand, ok, if you and Parminder don't think we
>> should work through ICANN give us viable strategies and scenarios for
>> getting _/liberal/_ and democratic freedoms in to global governance of
>> the Internet some other way. I'm all ears.
>>
>> --MM
>>
>>
>>
> Since you ears are opened :
> There are some other ways indeed,  simply put ICANN in the place it
> belongs :
> a namespace service providers among other ones...
> ie opening the competition to DNS services.
>
> I Can  ( monopoly )  -->  We can ( competition )
>
> For sure, as the phone business,
>   ICANN,  the "historic" namespace  service provider would remain for years
>  the  main player, but the clock in cybertime is running fast.
>
> What I am all ears is about concrete proposals of multistakeholders
> governance within
> the new DNS/ classes/,  learning from the flaws of ICANN.
> The governance models could be diverse and adapted to each/ class/.
>
> Bla bla should be avoided as well as declarations of noble principles
> everybody agrees upon, but that takes all the bandwidth required
> for an effective discussion.
>
> What is needed  are effecient mechanisms with a sound legal basis,
> not with a mixed brew of corporate and governement "memos"
> and "agreements".
> I did propose sometimes ago the UNMSP scheme.
> http://unmsp.org
>
> Best
>
> Francis
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D
>
> MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals
> http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net
> muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net
>
> KNIS http://knis.org
> Academic Collaboration / University of Geneva
> http://syinf.unige.ch/recherche/cooperation
>
> Mobile France +33 6 71 91 42 10
> Switzerland +41 78 927 06 97
> Cameroun +237 96 55 69 62 ( mostly in July )
>
> World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS)
> Civil Society Working Groups
> Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair
> Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair
> Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web
> Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis-gov.org web
>
> NET4D : http://www.net4D.org
> UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org
> WTIS : http://www.wtis.org REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box #1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance